Pennycat

What a thoughtful, well reasoned counter argument.
 
Here's the law:
8 U.S.C. § 1324b
 
And the Cliff's Notes Version:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-discrimination
"Employers may not treat individuals differently based on citizenship or immigration status. U.S. citizens, recent permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. 
...
 
Employers may not request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility, reject reasonably genuine-looking documents, or specify certain documents over others with the purpose or intent of discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin. U.S. citizens and all other work-authorized individuals are protected from unfair documentary practices."
 
 
 
EEOC establishing that this falls under "national origin":
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm
 
"Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
 
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract. Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."
 

What a thoughtful, well reasoned counter argument.
 
Here's the law:
8 U.S.C. § 1324b
 
And the Cliff's Notes Version:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-discrimination
"Employers may not treat individuals differently based on citizenship or immigration status. U.S. citizens, recent permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. 
...
 
Employers may not request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility, reject reasonably genuine-looking documents, or specify certain documents over others with the purpose or intent of discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin. U.S. citizens and all other work-authorized individuals are protected from unfair documentary practices."
 
 
 
EEOC establishing that this falls under "national origin":
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm
 
"Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
 
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract. Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."
 

What a thoughtful, well reasoned counter argument.
 
Here's the law:
8 U.S.C. § 1324b
 
And the Cliff's Notes Version:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-discrimination
"Employers may not treat individuals differently based on citizenship or immigration status. U.S. citizens, recent permanent residents, temporary residents, asylees and refugees are protected from citizenship status discrimination. 
...
 
Employers may not request more or different documents than are required to verify employment eligibility, reject reasonably genuine-looking documents, or specify certain documents over others with the purpose or intent of discriminating on the basis of citizenship status or national origin. U.S. citizens and all other work-authorized individuals are protected from unfair documentary practices."
 
 
 
EEOC establishing that this falls under "national origin":
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/nationalorigin.cfm
 
"Citizenship Discrimination & Workplace Laws
 
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based upon an individual's citizenship or immigration status. The law prohibits employers from hiring only U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents unless required to do so by law, regulation or government contract. Employers may not refuse to accept lawful documentation that establishes the employment eligibility of an employee, or demand additional documentation beyond what is legally required, when verifying employment eligibility (i.e., completing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Form I-9), based on the employee's national origin or citizenship status. It is the employee's choice which of the acceptable Form I-9 documents to show to verify employment eligibility."
 

He's been hired. This is orientation. If they refuse to continue his employment based on their misunderstanding of or preference against his employment authorization documents, that is flat out discrimination based on national origin. I am not sure what is so complicated about this. That is why I said IF they terminate his employment because of this, he should get it in writing and sue the pants off of them. It is also illegal to not hire someone based on this, but it is much more difficult to prove that, which doesn't make it right. 

He's been hired. This is orientation. If they refuse to continue his employment based on their misunderstanding of or preference against his employment authorization documents, that is flat out discrimination based on national origin. I am not sure what is so complicated about this. That is why I said IF they terminate his employment because of this, he should get it in writing and sue the pants off of them. It is also illegal to not hire someone based on this, but it is much more difficult to prove that, which doesn't make it right. 

This would fall under "national origin". He is legally present and authorized to work has the documents to prove it. They can't pick and choose which documents are acceptable to them, and if they try to (out of malice or sheer incompetence) he has been discriminated against due to national origin. If he gets it in writing, he's got a case. 

He's been hired. This is orientation. If they refuse to continue his employment based on their misunderstanding of or preference against his employment authorization documents, that is flat out discrimination based on national origin. I am not sure what is so complicated about this. That is why I said IF they terminate his employment because of this, he should get it in writing and sue the pants off of them. It is also illegal to not hire someone based on this, but it is much more difficult to prove that, which doesn't make it right. 

Sorry, that's not really kind of the uncle (I remember your other post). Not that he owes it to you or anything, but I assume you started this route thinking/knowing that he'd co-sponsor and make decisions based around that and he's just pulled the rug out from under you.
 
Any way you can reach back out to him (or maybe your family?) and explain that this particular affidavit is not legally enforceable (it's not, the one for the green card IS-- this is basically them checking to be sure there is someone willing and able to co-sponsor on the other side so that he doesn't wind up in immigration status limbo in the US). Or is it really the issue that he doesn't want to give you the financial papers? No sealed envelope will make him change his mind?
 
 

He's been hired. This is orientation. If they refuse to continue his employment based on their misunderstanding of or preference against his employment authorization documents, that is flat out discrimination based on national origin. I am not sure what is so complicated about this. That is why I said IF they terminate his employment because of this, he should get it in writing and sue the pants off of them. It is also illegal to not hire someone based on this, but it is much more difficult to prove that, which doesn't make it right. 

I would request the reason for your termination in writing and then sue the pants off of them because they can't discriminate against you for that. Also, you can get an unrestricted SS card, you just encountered someone who doesn't know how to do their jobs (shocking, that). 

They lied.  

I did read the entire thread, OP hasn't replied since John realized his mistake (and frankly, it's not the greatest advice to answer someone you think is a newbie with a final-sounding answer for only one stage of the application anyway-- most people are often concerned about the overall picture and newbies often don't know the difference--- an issue not addressed) and no one yet had brought up the fact that this will be an issue during AOS as well, with links to the relevant portion of the application. 
 
I chose the worst bit of advice on the entire thread to clear that up and tagged the OP to be sure he saw it (again, he hasn't responded since John realized it was a mistake), and alert him to the AOS problem.

I give up on updating that thing. I have added my name several times to the very most recent version, and somehow someone always manages to copy the wrong one. I imagine there are others as well.

K1s can and should get an SSN before marriage https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0110211530
 
It's  a completely different process to a spouse visa. Spouse visa will have 551 on arrival and so can get SSN whenever they want. K1s need to get it before the I-94 expires (actually two weeks before it expires) or wait until EAD and EAD is taking 6 months these days. It's not valid for employment (it looks like this: https://www.verifyi9.com/restricted-ss-cards-no-longer-accepted/) until EAD arrives (that is the "DHS authorization" in question). But it is good for all the other things you need an SSN for. If these people cause this person to miss the I-94 window, they are signing them up to need to wait 6 months for a bank account, drivers licence etc. This is exactly why K1s are allowed to get SSNs when they arrive. 

I do not think that you NEED an SSN for AOS (I personally don't remember from my husband's process) but it will make your life much, much, much easier (the bank account and state ID/ driver's licence is the perfect example) and it is highly recommended. If you don't get it more than two weeks before your I-94 expires (your 90 days), you have to wait until you get EAD and that's going to be about 6 months after you apply for AOS.
 
Who cares what they think you "need". That is not their call. You want it and you are eligible for it and it is their job to give it to you. You need to ask to speak to a supervisor (not sure if this is common in your country, it i snot in my husband's and consequently it took FOUR trips to the DMV to get his state ID... this is simply how things are handled here) and failing that, go to a different office and then turn these incompetent twits in to someone who can discipline or "re-train" them in their duties. 
 
Here's the list of people/ statuses eligible for PA state IDs/ drivers licences. Please note that all three statuses you will pass through in the next year (K1, conditional entrant, permanent resident) require an SSN. http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Public/DVSPubsForms/BDL/BDL Publications/pub 195nc.pdf
 
 
 
 
How to turn the twits in:
Contacting the member of congress who represents your area (this sounds dramatic, it is not, trust me, this was my first job out of college)-- their local office/ district office. Go to their website, there will be some sort of "constituent service" or "trouble with a federal agency" portion (or a number to call). Tell them that you are eligible for an SSN (show them the links provided here) but that X person at Y office is either discriminating against immigrants (be sure to hit home that you are a legal immigrant) or poorly trained/ incompetent to the point that they are about to cause me to miss my narrow window to get an SSN (if I don't get it by X date, I will have to wait for my employment authorization to arrive and right now that is taking 6 months). The consequences of missing this window are inability to get a driver's licence or state ID, bank account etc. This person, through their bias or incompetence is about to cost me 6 or more months without a bank account or drivers licence. You are asking for their help in contacting SSA to confirm that you are eligible for an SSN, that the local offices do not get to choose if you get one based on "need"... eligibility and desire are sufficient, and can they please have SSA communicate that to the local office. This is a very time sensitive issue, you need this resolved by (DATE: I'd put a full month before the I-94 expiry). This may be better coming from your fiance. And personally, I'd call to get the ball rolling faster. Also you may want to try one or both Senators instead, depending on who your member of congress actually IS and how on the ball their district staff is (and, frankly, how willing they are to help immigrants).
 
And even if you sort this out on your own and get an SSN, do this. These people do NOT deserve to have that job if they can't or won't do it. If you feel like being a real pain in the neck about it (I always err on maximum bureaucratic hellfire when dealing with government employees who cross me), write a letter including all of the above information. Send it to that office and make sure you indicate at the bottom that you have CCd your member of congress and SSA's Civil Rights Complaint Adjudication Office. Just to make this person sweat for a few months. They'll not make this mistake again. 
 
Social Security Administration
Civil Rights Complaint Adjudication Office
P.O. Box 17788
Baltimore, MD 21235‐7788

His DL and his social security card that is "clean"-- does NOT have "VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION" written on it. He can go to the SSA office and order a new one if he doesn't have a clean one yet.
 
His job is prohibited by law from re-validating a green card they have already checked, precisely for this exact reason. Everyone here is freaking out about this needlessly. The issue is getting a NEW job, if necessary with the expired green card. It will be 1000 times easier with a DL and clean SSA card but everyone here is laser focused on the NOA1, which technically is NOT on the list of approved documents for proving legal status to work. 

I think that there are far too many different scenarios under which a couple may need a cosponsor to make it a blanket rule.
 
Just off the top of my head-- there are young people/students who do not currently have a high salary but may soon (and yes, they could wait, but the reality of student visas etc makes that complicated); Americans who lose their jobs between immigration on K1 and time for AOS and a variety of scenarios (K1s, students etc) in which the beneficiary cannot yet work in the US but when they can, the household income will easily exceed the requirements. I wouldn't want them to factor in earning potential into a decision even though most of these scenarios are cleared up by the immigrant being able to work because that's not solid... it is potential, not fact. What IS solid is a co-sponsor signing the affidavit of support. 
 
All of the rest of it about stress on the relationship and how a family handles its finances (example: parents happily supporting a daughter and foreign son-in-law) really isn't the government's business so long as the government has made sure the foreigner won't be a burden on the welfare system. It could be a bad idea, or culturally odd but that's the couple's problem, not the government's.  I do personally think that people who can't get to 125% on their own really shouldn't be messing around with this process but I also think a lot of things about other people's finances and life choices. The question is really what the government should do, and cosponsors are really just a tool to help protect the taxpayer. Their relationship and finances are up to them. 

I don't disagree but just think about it from the government's perspective for a moment. We can sit here and judge people for their poor decisions all we want but the bottom line for the government is that that woman would have been on welfare one way or another, with or without him. As long as someone here (her co-sponsor) is going to financially guarantee that HE won't be added to the welfare rolls, that's all they're really concerned about in the first place and that's what the co-sponsors are for.
 
The young/just out of college folks would need a co-sponsor because they don't meet the income requirements. Cutting off co-sponsors generally, in an effort to get to people making dumb decisions, would punish a whole swath of people you'd be ok with getting co-sponsors. When really the way in which it would effect you personally as a taxpayer is taken care of. No extra person getting welfare because a co-sponsor has guaranteed he can't. Additionally, it sounds in this case you've brought up, the immigrant IS being industrious and working. Has he earned enough to get this US-born family off of welfare? That could certainly be a positive development.
 
Again, I'm not saying that someone in such bad financial shape that they personally are on welfare is making a wise decision here. And you, or I or other people can be as judgmental as we want to be about that on a personal level, lord knows I certainly am when it comes to couples on a certain reality TV program about K1 couples. But on a taxpayer money level, the co-sponsor thing sorts it out, at least until the person is a citizen (which obviously is a different set of circumstances). If that co-sponsor wants to take the burden, let them, I say. 

I think that there are far too many different scenarios under which a couple may need a cosponsor to make it a blanket rule.
 
Just off the top of my head-- there are young people/students who do not currently have a high salary but may soon (and yes, they could wait, but the reality of student visas etc makes that complicated); Americans who lose their jobs between immigration on K1 and time for AOS and a variety of scenarios (K1s, students etc) in which the beneficiary cannot yet work in the US but when they can, the household income will easily exceed the requirements. I wouldn't want them to factor in earning potential into a decision even though most of these scenarios are cleared up by the immigrant being able to work because that's not solid... it is potential, not fact. What IS solid is a co-sponsor signing the affidavit of support. 
 
All of the rest of it about stress on the relationship and how a family handles its finances (example: parents happily supporting a daughter and foreign son-in-law) really isn't the government's business so long as the government has made sure the foreigner won't be a burden on the welfare system. It could be a bad idea, or culturally odd but that's the couple's problem, not the government's.  I do personally think that people who can't get to 125% on their own really shouldn't be messing around with this process but I also think a lot of things about other people's finances and life choices. The question is really what the government should do, and cosponsors are really just a tool to help protect the taxpayer. Their relationship and finances are up to them. 

His DL and his social security card that is "clean"-- does NOT have "VALID FOR WORK ONLY WITH DHS AUTHORIZATION" written on it. He can go to the SSA office and order a new one if he doesn't have a clean one yet.
 
His job is prohibited by law from re-validating a green card they have already checked, precisely for this exact reason. Everyone here is freaking out about this needlessly. The issue is getting a NEW job, if necessary with the expired green card. It will be 1000 times easier with a DL and clean SSA card but everyone here is laser focused on the NOA1, which technically is NOT on the list of approved documents for proving legal status to work. 

I don't disagree but just think about it from the government's perspective for a moment. We can sit here and judge people for their poor decisions all we want but the bottom line for the government is that that woman would have been on welfare one way or another, with or without him. As long as someone here (her co-sponsor) is going to financially guarantee that HE won't be added to the welfare rolls, that's all they're really concerned about in the first place and that's what the co-sponsors are for.
 
The young/just out of college folks would need a co-sponsor because they don't meet the income requirements. Cutting off co-sponsors generally, in an effort to get to people making dumb decisions, would punish a whole swath of people you'd be ok with getting co-sponsors. When really the way in which it would effect you personally as a taxpayer is taken care of. No extra person getting welfare because a co-sponsor has guaranteed he can't. Additionally, it sounds in this case you've brought up, the immigrant IS being industrious and working. Has he earned enough to get this US-born family off of welfare? That could certainly be a positive development.
 
Again, I'm not saying that someone in such bad financial shape that they personally are on welfare is making a wise decision here. And you, or I or other people can be as judgmental as we want to be about that on a personal level, lord knows I certainly am when it comes to couples on a certain reality TV program about K1 couples. But on a taxpayer money level, the co-sponsor thing sorts it out, at least until the person is a citizen (which obviously is a different set of circumstances). If that co-sponsor wants to take the burden, let them, I say. 

I think that there are far too many different scenarios under which a couple may need a cosponsor to make it a blanket rule.
 
Just off the top of my head-- there are young people/students who do not currently have a high salary but may soon (and yes, they could wait, but the reality of student visas etc makes that complicated); Americans who lose their jobs between immigration on K1 and time for AOS and a variety of scenarios (K1s, students etc) in which the beneficiary cannot yet work in the US but when they can, the household income will easily exceed the requirements. I wouldn't want them to factor in earning potential into a decision even though most of these scenarios are cleared up by the immigrant being able to work because that's not solid... it is potential, not fact. What IS solid is a co-sponsor signing the affidavit of support. 
 
All of the rest of it about stress on the relationship and how a family handles its finances (example: parents happily supporting a daughter and foreign son-in-law) really isn't the government's business so long as the government has made sure the foreigner won't be a burden on the welfare system. It could be a bad idea, or culturally odd but that's the couple's problem, not the government's.  I do personally think that people who can't get to 125% on their own really shouldn't be messing around with this process but I also think a lot of things about other people's finances and life choices. The question is really what the government should do, and cosponsors are really just a tool to help protect the taxpayer. Their relationship and finances are up to them. 

Nope, this is a proposed rule change not a change in law. They are vastly different processes. The short version is: Congress passes a statute (law) but the Executive branch (the federal agencies who have the experts) set the rules to enact/enforce that statute. In this case the law simply "Any alien who, in the opinion of the consular officer at the time of application for a visa, or in the opinion of the Attorney General at the time of application for admission or adjustment of status, is likely at any time to become a public charge is inadmissible.". The law does not define "public charge" or prescribe the manner in which State/DHS may make that determination. I believe they were or are also considering using credit scores to make this determination at some point. 
 
It works this way because Congress is made of of dairy farmers, retirees, physicians, social workers, engineers etc, who don't have the background in every niche area to get down to the specifics and their job is to set the policy, not figure out how that policy is enacted, basically. That's what the executive branch is there for, and which is why the federal service is supposed to be non-political and non-partisian (federal employees are bound by a lot of rules regarding their personal political activities and the reason they are "impossible to fire" is specifically so that a new president can't come in, fire all the workers and replace them with "experts" who just happen to also agree with his or her political will). 
 
 
The proposed rule must be published in the Federal Register for public (and Congressional) review and comment for 60 days but can be enacted right after that. Congress CAN veto a proposed rule change but that has happened once in the past 25 years. Here's some background:
 
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32240.pdf
 
https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf
 

Unless I’m mistaken the topic is not about joint sponsors but raising the poverty guideline astronomically.
 
If someone makes 125% for their household then they are able to support their relative without the government. They may be eating canned soup instead of steak and so what? You shouldn’t need to be rich to bring a loved one here. You also shouldn’t expect the rest of the country to support your foreign relative via benefits. But that’s why 125% has been the guideline - it shows help from the country won’t be necessary. Raising the guideline is wrong and it’s a very deliberate way of closing the US off to people from less desirable (S***hole according to trump) countries.

I think that there are far too many different scenarios under which a couple may need a cosponsor to make it a blanket rule.
 
Just off the top of my head-- there are young people/students who do not currently have a high salary but may soon (and yes, they could wait, but the reality of student visas etc makes that complicated); Americans who lose their jobs between immigration on K1 and time for AOS and a variety of scenarios (K1s, students etc) in which the beneficiary cannot yet work in the US but when they can, the household income will easily exceed the requirements. I wouldn't want them to factor in earning potential into a decision even though most of these scenarios are cleared up by the immigrant being able to work because that's not solid... it is potential, not fact. What IS solid is a co-sponsor signing the affidavit of support. 
 
All of the rest of it about stress on the relationship and how a family handles its finances (example: parents happily supporting a daughter and foreign son-in-law) really isn't the government's business so long as the government has made sure the foreigner won't be a burden on the welfare system. It could be a bad idea, or culturally odd but that's the couple's problem, not the government's.  I do personally think that people who can't get to 125% on their own really shouldn't be messing around with this process but I also think a lot of things about other people's finances and life choices. The question is really what the government should do, and cosponsors are really just a tool to help protect the taxpayer. Their relationship and finances are up to them.